Disagree on the politics, but this is a quality tweet. Well played, sir. RT @dmataconis 216 votes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp069Y_P-9M
Disagree on the politics, but this is a quality tweet. Well played, sir. RT @dmataconis 216 votes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp069Y_P-9M
Meh, its more applicable to the Patriot Act or than health care reform.
The clip applies to both rambling acts of tyranny. If only we could put people in power who don’t seek more power. If there was an amendment in my state to choose house members via semi-random sample, I would seriously consider it.
ceiliazul, how is health care reform an act of tyranny? I don’t think you understand what tyranny really means.
I mean i guess it takes away the right of health care companies to deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions, so yeah that must really suck for the American people?
Help, help, I’m being repressed!
how is health care reform an act of tyranny?
It is isn’t. THIS PARTICULAR FORM of reform is.
When the government ORDERS you to do something, especially when it orders you to BUY something, that is tyranny.
So when the governmetn orders me to buckle my seatbelt I should expect to be put in a concentration camp next?
Sorry gahrie, but tyranny in my mind is the government being able to spy on me whenever it wants and detain me indefinitely for however long it wants. THAT is oppression.
Health care reform, even if it mandates I purchase insurance is not oppression, except in the most liberal reading of the definition.
Where was your outrage when the Patriot Act went through? When Bush supporters were saying that Liberals should be kicked out of the country or worse for merely disagreeing with the President? When the Bush administration used illegal wiretaps?
1) I do feel seatbelt laws are a form of tyranny, and I oppose them strongly. However they are different in two ways:
A) There is no right to drive a car. If you disagree with the restrictions government places on driving, you just don’t drive.
B) Seatbelt laws are state laws, not federal laws. If I disagree with my state’s laws, I may simply move to another state.
2) No serious conservative ever said liberals should be kicked out of the country. (although some may have been invited to leave or follow through on their promises to leave)
3) The Patriot Act has never been ruled to be illegal, and is still in full force under the Obama administration.
4) If you want to be offended by government spying and detentions, I suggest you examine the Lincoln and FDR administrations.
Gahrie, I’ve been arguing about that very issue (whether insurance mandates = tyranny) with some folks on Twitter. I make a rambling attempt here to express my thoughts on it. Bottom line, it’s just not as simple as “OMG HOW DARE THEY MAKE ME BUY INSURANCE,” given the realities of the way our health care system inevitably works. It would be a straightforward argument if the voluntarily uninsured were willing to sign a document that said, “I don’t want insurance, and if I get sick anyway and can’t pay for it, I promise not to make the government, or other insureds, or anyone else, pick up my tab; instead, you should let me lie in a ditch and die,” and if such a document would be legally or morally unenforceable. But of course, it wouldn’t be. Given that, there’s an entirely rational argument for saying “you gotta either buy insurance or pay a fine for failing to do so,” which is really not much different from saying “we’re raising taxes to offset health costs, but we’ll exempt you from the tax if you have insurance because you’re already paying into the system.” If they start throwing people in jail for not having insurance, we can talk about “tyranny,” but right now, I think we’re actually just discussing economic incentives toward achieving a more rational health care and insurance system.
Put another way… taken to its logical conclusion, the argument that “when the government ORDERS you to do something, especially when it orders you to BUY something, that is tyranny,” suggests that all taxation is tyranny. After all, what are taxes, really, but forced payments that “buy” various government programs? For instance, you’re required to pay taxes that “buy” a free public education (“free”…heh). Now, suppose there was an exemption that said, if you send your kids to private school, you don’t have to pay the portion of your taxes that support public education. That would actually be LESS “tyrannical” than the current system, right? The current system taxes everyone — my proposed system would tax only the people who use the resource. Yet this would pretty clearly be the government “forcing” you to “buy” something: either you send your kids to private school, and earn the proposed exemption, or else you pay the “penalty” of being taxed to support your kid’s public school education. Would that be “tyranny,” too?
Brendan:
If the reform had been to create a nationalized health care system supported by the taxpayers, I would still have opposed it, but not considered it a tyranny. Taxes are an obligation of the citizen. (It is true however that I oppose the income tax, and seek it’s repeal and a return to the pre-World War I levels of federal government)
If the government can force you to buy health insurance, what can’t it force you to buy?
What can’t it force you to do?
Where is the line now in your Brave New World?